Category Archives: W

Wackenhut Corporation

Wackenhut Corporation

Wackenhut Corporation

In line with Dorothy Moses Schulz

about Wackenhut Corporation in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

Formed in 1954 by George R. Wackenhut and three other former special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Wackenhut Corporation provides security services to a vast number of private and government agencies. Its involvement with so many federal agencies is unique among private security firms, particularly in its role as a provider of uniformed security officers for United States State Department facilities around the world and for nuclear power plants and transit agencies within the United States of America. Much like the development of both the Pinkerton and the Burns detective agencies in the 19th century, the Wackenhut Corporation in the 21st century remains closely associated with its founder and his family. By 1958, a number of smaller companies in which he was involved were combined under the name of Wackenhut Corporation, and George W.

Whistle-Blowing

Whistle-Blowing

Whistle-Blowing

In line with Daniel Agatino

about Whistle-Blowing in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

The origin of the term whistle-blower is unclear. Some have argued that the word is derived from an English police officer's use of a whistle while trying to apprehend a criminal. Others have analogized the word with a referee who blows a whistle to announce an illegal action during a game. Although the word's origin is in dispute, its definition is not. A whistle-blower is an individual who reports the illegal or unethical behavior of his or her employer, coworkers, or some other business or government entity to the appropriate authorities. Whistle-blowers provide an important public service by reporting abuse, fraud, dangerous working conditions, a hostile work environment, or numerous other forms of misconduct. Law enforcement officers have a heightened ethical duty to report the wrongdoings of their colleagues in order to secure the trust of the public whom they serve.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Weapons of Mass Destruction

In line with John P. Sullivan

about Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and large explosive (CBRNE) means used as a terrorist tool. Several terrorist groups are known to have used, acquired, or attempted to acquire WMD. These include Aum Shinrikyo, perpetrator of the 1995 Tokyo Sarin attack and al-Qaeda, which seeks chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons to further its self-proclaimed global terrorist jihad. Additionally, after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in Bigg Apple (New York) City and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, an unknown actor or actors conducted an anthrax attack via mailed envelopes to media and government officials, yielding 22 cases of anthrax infection, which ultimately resulted in five deaths. The label weapons of mass destruction is considered to include chemical warfare agents, biological or biologic warfare agents, nuclear materials and radiological isotopes, or the intentional release of industrial agents as a weapon.

Wong Sun v. United States

Wong Sun v. United States

Wong Sun v. United States as a Leading U.S. Case

Wong Sun v. United States is one of the leading United States Supreme Court decisions impacting law enforcement in the United States, and, in this regards, Wong Sun v. United States may be a case reference for attorneys and police officers. As a leading case, this entry about Wong Sun v. United States tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. The significance of Wong Sun v. United States is also explained, together with the relevance of Wong Sun v. United States impact on citizens and law enforcement.

Citation of Wong Sun v. United States

371 U.S. 471 (1963)

Wickersham Commission

Wickersham Commission

National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (Wickersham Commission)

In line with Carol A. Archbold

about Wickersham Commission in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

In 1929 President Herbert Hoover created the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement. The commission is often referred to as the Wickersham Commission, named after George W. Wickersham, who served as its chairperson. The commission comprised several leading experts in criminal justice and law in the United States of America at that time. Some of the other members of the Wickersham Commission included Roscoe Pound, Newton D. Baker, Frank Loesch, Paul J. McCormick, Ada L. Comstock, William I. Grubb, William S. Kenyon, Henry W. Anderson, and Monte M. Lemann. The Wickersham Commission was created in response to some of the major crime problems relevant to that time period, including organized crime and Prohibition. To better understand the state of crime and criminal justice in the United States of America, the Wickersham Commission conducted the first federal assessment of crime and the criminal justice system over a two-year time period (1929-1931).

Wilson v. Arkansas

Wilson v. Arkansas

Wilson v. Arkansas as a Leading U.S. Case

Wilson v. Arkansas is one of the leading United States Supreme Court decisions impacting law enforcement in the United States, and, in this regards, Wilson v. Arkansas may be a case reference for attorneys and police officers. As a leading case, this entry about Wilson v. Arkansas tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. The significance of Wilson v. Arkansas is also explained, together with the relevance of Wilson v. Arkansas impact on citizens and law enforcement.

Citation of Wilson v. Arkansas

514 U.S. 927 (1995)

Wyoming v. Houghton

Wyoming v. Houghton

Wyoming v. Houghton as a Leading U.S. Case

Wyoming v. Houghton is one of the leading United States Supreme Court decisions impacting law enforcement in the United States, and, in this regards, Wyoming v. Houghton may be a case reference for attorneys and police officers. As a leading case, this entry about Wyoming v. Houghton tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. The significance of Wyoming v. Houghton is also explained, together with the relevance of Wyoming v. Houghton impact on citizens and law enforcement.

Citation of Wyoming v. Houghton

526 U.S. 295 (1999)

White-Collar Crimes

White-Collar Crimes

White-Collar Crime Enforcement

In line with Venessa Garcia & Richard Butler

about White-Collar Crimes in the Encyclopedia of Law Enforcement:

White-collar crime is most often defined as crime committed by individuals who are engaged in professional activities and who participate in criminal activity to benefit either themselves or their employers. Because white-collar criminals are persons in professional occupations, the phrase white collar is used to differentiate the offenders and their offenses from the more traditional violent crimes (there is more information about criminal law in the American Legal Encyclopedia and about crimes and criminals vocabulary) such as robbery or assault. White-collar crime is often also called corporate crime or more informally suite crime , again in contrast to street crime. Offenses might include bribe taking, price gouging, fraud, mislabeling products, or violations of tax or other regulatory agency prohibitions. Despite the problems in defining white-collar crime and in enforcing against it, many federal law enforcement agencies have traditionally been created to deal specifically with such crimes (there is more information about criminal law in the American Legal Encyclopedia and about crimes and criminals vocabulary), rather than street crime, which is more commonly the responsibility of local police forces. The Commerce Clause of the United States

Weeks v. United States

Weeks v. United States

Weeks v. United States as a Leading U.S. Case

Weeks v. United States is one of the leading United States Supreme Court decisions impacting law enforcement in the United States, and, in this regards, Weeks v. United States may be a case reference for attorneys and police officers. As a leading case, this entry about Weeks v. United States tries to include facts, relevant legal issues, and the Court's decision and reasoning. The significance of Weeks v. United States is also explained, together with the relevance of Weeks v. United States impact on citizens and law enforcement.

Citation of Weeks v. United States

232 U.S. 383 (1914)